It would still be good to reach 100% coverage so I wonder if it's worth having a category for "best previously unphotographed" and then the one for "best refresh" where the new photo must either tell a new story about an monument with an existing photo, or must be a better overall composition than the existing monument.
On Sun, Jun 2, 2024, 14:25 Maarten Dammers <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As you probably know, Wiki Loves Monuments started in 2010 in the > Netherlands, 2011 in Europe and 2012 worldwide (I was one of the main > organizers for those years). We managed to get a lot of monuments > photographed that didn't have a photo before. In the Netherlands we also > got a large collection from the local heritage organization (see > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Rijksdienst_voor_het_Cultureel_Erfgoed > ). After that, we had some sequels in the Netherlands, but attention and > numbers dropped as you can see at > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Monuments_in_the_Netherlands > . > > In my opinion this is because Wiki Loves Monuments is suffering from the > sequel problem: We keep repeating the same concept that worked really > well in the past, but is a bit of a stale copy of what it used to be. > Bit like movies where successful movies keep getting sequels. Of course > this only applies to countries where WLM was done multiple times. > > Just like movie franchises that have become a bit stale, we can go back > to our basis and reinvent ourselves. Our basis is at > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments/Philosophy > : > * Make it easy > * Make it fun > * Make it local > * Help Wikipedia > * Give quick and visible results > > The coverage in the Netherlands is currently 90%. So if you compare it > to the first years: It's not easy to find something to photograph, not > much fun finding it, probably not local (already done), it's hard to > help Wikipedia because it already has a photo and no quick and visible > results. > > I made a query at https://w.wiki/AGP5 to give a random sample of > rijksmonumenten (monuments in the Netherlands) that have an image. > Clicking through it I noticed that the majority of images (80%? 90%?) is > of 10 years old. A lot has changed in 10 years: The monuments might have > changed and camera quality improved a lot. So my idea for 2024: Let's > focus on getting new images for monuments that currently have an old > image. This would be like a reset where suddenly you'll have tons of > monuments to photograph nearby. We would need to update some of our > tooling to find monuments to photograph and to get them used, but let's > worry about that later. > > What do you think? > > Maarten > > > > _______________________________________________ > WikiLovesMonuments mailing list -- [email protected] > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/2MPEXZ67BG3CXFH657LNYX7TTMZXFMVY/ > > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org >
_______________________________________________ WikiLovesMonuments mailing list -- [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/XD72CTHTJOGIJYPB47HXKYEDWJTPRAP6/ http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
